1 WO JDN 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joseph Lee McDonald, No. CV-24-01609-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. ORDER 12 Sean Wead, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Joseph Lee McDonald, who is confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center 17 (SCC) in Eloy, Arizona, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 against SCC Warden Sean Wead, Associate Warden Jody Bradley, and Lieutenant 19 Christopher Lewis. (Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Facility Property 20 Officer to Cease From Hindering Plaintiff’s Access to the Courts.” (Doc. 24.) The Court 21 will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 I. Background 23 In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted two counts for relief. (Doc. 1.) In Count One, 24 Plaintiff alleged that Defendants infringed on his right to familial association and 25 communication in violation of the First Amendment. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleged that 26 Defendants are denying him contact and communication with his spouse, who is a former 27 SCC employee, and their three children. (See id. at 4–8.) In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged 28 that Defendants are retaliating against him in violation of the First Amendment. (Id. at 10.) 1 Plaintiff claimed that Defendants have retaliated against him for communicating with his 2 wife by issuing disciplinary reports, which has resulted in segregation, loss of good time 3 credit, and interference with his participation in the “ship program.” (See id. at 11–15.) 4 Upon screening, the Court determined that Plaintiff sufficiently stated First 5 Amendment familial association and retaliation claims against Defendants and directed 6 them to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 8.) 7 In November 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling Order that set deadlines, 8 including a January 14, 2025 deadline for amending pleadings and an April 14, 2025 9 discovery deadline. (Doc. 16.) 10 On January 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed his pending Motion. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff states 11 that, on January 5, 2025, he was sent to segregation. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff states that he 12 submitted several requests for his legal work and allowable property; however, Property 13 Officer Ms. Fernino only brought him some of his legal materials and refused to give him 14 the rest, including materials from defense counsel in this case. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, 15 he has already missed one deadline. (Id.) Plaintiff requests an order from the Court 16 directing the Property Officer to stop her acts of retaliation, stop hindering him from 17 proceeding in this case, and provide him all his legal materials, including writing materials 18 such as paper and envelopes. (Id. at 1–2.) 19 On February 13, 2025, Defendants filed their first Response in opposition to 20 Plaintiff’s Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot prove any retaliation or denial of 21 access to the courts that resulted in actual injury, and Plaintiff cannot establish that Property 22 Officer Fernino deliberately denied Plaintiff access to the courts. (Doc. 30.)1 23 The same day Defendants filed their Response, the Court issued an Order directing 24 Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion and to inform the Court of the status of 25 Plaintiff’s access to his legal materials. (Doc. 31.) 26 27 28 1 In support of their first Response, Defendants referred to the attached declaration of Officer Fernino; however, no declaration was attached. (Doc. 30 at 4.) 1 Defendants filed a second Response arguing that Plaintiff did not suffer any actual 2 injury because, even though he missed a January 14, 2025 deadline, he did not suffer any 3 dismissal of claims, and he cannot show that Officer Fernino deliberately denied him 4 access to the courts. (Doc. 34 at 2–3.) Defendants submitted a declaration from Officer 5 Fernino in which she explains that prisoners in the Restricted Housing Unit—where 6 Plaintiff is housed—are permitted to keep legal materials for current cases in their cells; 7 however, if the volume of materials is such that it creates a fire hazard, the excess materials 8 are kept in the unit’s property room. (Doc. 35-1 at 3, Fernino Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) Officer 9 Fernino states that a prisoner may submit an Inmate Request Form to access legal materials 10 in the property room. (Id. ¶ 11.) Officer Fernino avers that Plaintiff has not submitted an 11 Inmate Request Form for legal materials or property since January 15, 2025, and that, 12 currently, Plaintiff has all his legal materials. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) Defendants also submitted a 13 copy of Plaintiff’s mail log history, which shows that he has sent outgoing legal mail 14 correspondence, including to the Court and to defense counsel, at least fourteen times since 15 January 21, 2025. (Doc. 35-2 at 2.) 16 Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his Motion. 17 II. Governing Standards 18 A. Preliminary Injunction 19 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 20 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 21 Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 22 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 23 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 24 never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that 25 (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without 26 an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the 27 public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The movant “has the burden of proof on each 28 element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements on prisoner 3 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and requires that 4 any injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct 5 the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 6 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 B. Access to the Courts 8 A court generally does not have authority to issue an injunction for relief on claims 9 not pled in the underlying complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. 10 Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). But an exception to this rule arises where the 11 injunctive relief sought is related to a prisoner’s access to the courts. See Prince v. Schriro, 12 et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (where 13 the relief sought relates to a prisoner’s access to the court, “a nexus between the preliminary 14 relief and the ultimate relief sought is not required[,]” and the court need not consider the 15 merits of the underlying complaint) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th 16 Cir. 1990)). 17 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, protected by the First 18 Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due 19 process. Silva v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO JDN 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joseph Lee McDonald, No. CV-24-01609-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. ORDER 12 Sean Wead, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Joseph Lee McDonald, who is confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center 17 (SCC) in Eloy, Arizona, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 against SCC Warden Sean Wead, Associate Warden Jody Bradley, and Lieutenant 19 Christopher Lewis. (Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Facility Property 20 Officer to Cease From Hindering Plaintiff’s Access to the Courts.” (Doc. 24.) The Court 21 will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 I. Background 23 In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted two counts for relief. (Doc. 1.) In Count One, 24 Plaintiff alleged that Defendants infringed on his right to familial association and 25 communication in violation of the First Amendment. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleged that 26 Defendants are denying him contact and communication with his spouse, who is a former 27 SCC employee, and their three children. (See id. at 4–8.) In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged 28 that Defendants are retaliating against him in violation of the First Amendment. (Id. at 10.) 1 Plaintiff claimed that Defendants have retaliated against him for communicating with his 2 wife by issuing disciplinary reports, which has resulted in segregation, loss of good time 3 credit, and interference with his participation in the “ship program.” (See id. at 11–15.) 4 Upon screening, the Court determined that Plaintiff sufficiently stated First 5 Amendment familial association and retaliation claims against Defendants and directed 6 them to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 8.) 7 In November 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling Order that set deadlines, 8 including a January 14, 2025 deadline for amending pleadings and an April 14, 2025 9 discovery deadline. (Doc. 16.) 10 On January 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed his pending Motion. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff states 11 that, on January 5, 2025, he was sent to segregation. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff states that he 12 submitted several requests for his legal work and allowable property; however, Property 13 Officer Ms. Fernino only brought him some of his legal materials and refused to give him 14 the rest, including materials from defense counsel in this case. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, 15 he has already missed one deadline. (Id.) Plaintiff requests an order from the Court 16 directing the Property Officer to stop her acts of retaliation, stop hindering him from 17 proceeding in this case, and provide him all his legal materials, including writing materials 18 such as paper and envelopes. (Id. at 1–2.) 19 On February 13, 2025, Defendants filed their first Response in opposition to 20 Plaintiff’s Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot prove any retaliation or denial of 21 access to the courts that resulted in actual injury, and Plaintiff cannot establish that Property 22 Officer Fernino deliberately denied Plaintiff access to the courts. (Doc. 30.)1 23 The same day Defendants filed their Response, the Court issued an Order directing 24 Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion and to inform the Court of the status of 25 Plaintiff’s access to his legal materials. (Doc. 31.) 26 27 28 1 In support of their first Response, Defendants referred to the attached declaration of Officer Fernino; however, no declaration was attached. (Doc. 30 at 4.) 1 Defendants filed a second Response arguing that Plaintiff did not suffer any actual 2 injury because, even though he missed a January 14, 2025 deadline, he did not suffer any 3 dismissal of claims, and he cannot show that Officer Fernino deliberately denied him 4 access to the courts. (Doc. 34 at 2–3.) Defendants submitted a declaration from Officer 5 Fernino in which she explains that prisoners in the Restricted Housing Unit—where 6 Plaintiff is housed—are permitted to keep legal materials for current cases in their cells; 7 however, if the volume of materials is such that it creates a fire hazard, the excess materials 8 are kept in the unit’s property room. (Doc. 35-1 at 3, Fernino Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) Officer 9 Fernino states that a prisoner may submit an Inmate Request Form to access legal materials 10 in the property room. (Id. ¶ 11.) Officer Fernino avers that Plaintiff has not submitted an 11 Inmate Request Form for legal materials or property since January 15, 2025, and that, 12 currently, Plaintiff has all his legal materials. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) Defendants also submitted a 13 copy of Plaintiff’s mail log history, which shows that he has sent outgoing legal mail 14 correspondence, including to the Court and to defense counsel, at least fourteen times since 15 January 21, 2025. (Doc. 35-2 at 2.) 16 Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his Motion. 17 II. Governing Standards 18 A. Preliminary Injunction 19 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 20 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 21 Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 22 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 23 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 24 never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that 25 (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without 26 an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the 27 public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The movant “has the burden of proof on each 28 element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements on prisoner 3 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and requires that 4 any injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct 5 the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 6 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 B. Access to the Courts 8 A court generally does not have authority to issue an injunction for relief on claims 9 not pled in the underlying complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. 10 Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). But an exception to this rule arises where the 11 injunctive relief sought is related to a prisoner’s access to the courts. See Prince v. Schriro, 12 et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (where 13 the relief sought relates to a prisoner’s access to the court, “a nexus between the preliminary 14 relief and the ultimate relief sought is not required[,]” and the court need not consider the 15 merits of the underlying complaint) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th 16 Cir. 1990)). 17 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, protected by the First 18 Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due 19 process. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other 20 grounds by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.2 (9th Cir. 2015). This right is limited 21 to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and Section 1983 civil rights actions. Lewis v. 22 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). The constitutional right of access to the courts 23 encompasses a right to litigate without active interference. See Silva, 658 F.3d at 1102. 24 To support an active interference claim, a prisoner must allege facts showing that officials’ 25 actions hindered the ability to litigate and that, as a result, the prisoner suffered an actual 26 injury. Id.; see Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349 (to maintain an access-to-the-courts claim, a prisoner 27 must show an “actual injury” resulting from the defendant’s actions). Actual injury must 28 be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” 1 Lewis, 518 at 348–49; see Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining 2 actual injury as the “inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge”). The failure 3 to allege an actual injury is “fatal.” Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) 4 (“[f]ailure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had been frustrated’ is fatal”) (quoting 5 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.4). Further, in alleging denial of the right of access to the 6 courts, specificity is required. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir. 1996). 7 III. Discussion 8 Plaintiff’s claims regarding lack of access to his legal materials, writing paper, and 9 envelopes implicate his right of access to the courts. Plaintiff’s claims are concerning, and 10 there are serious questions whether lack of access to legal documents in an ongoing case 11 and writing materials would impede prisoners’ ability to litigate their claims. See Bounds 12 v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25 (1977) (to ensure meaningful access to the court, states 13 must provide indigent prisoners with paper and pen to draft legal documents); id. at 828 14 (imposing duty on prison officials to provide access to adequate law libraries or other legal 15 assistance). Even so, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to sufficiently allege actual injury. Plaintiff 16 refers to the missed deadline for amending the pleadings; however, he does not state that 17 he had intended to move to amend his Complaint or add defendants. (Doc. 24.) Nor does 18 Plaintiff otherwise allege that he was unable to submit a document for filing. (See id.) 19 By not filing a reply, Plaintiff does not refute Defendants’ evidence showing that he 20 now has all his legal materials and that, for the last month, he has been able to mail out 21 numerous legal mail correspondence. Plaintiff fails to show with enough specificity that 22 he has suffered an actual injury or that Defendants or their agents are currently impeding 23 his right of access to the courts. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 24 825, 845 (1994) (whether a plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief should be determined by 25 the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for 26 injunctive relief related to his access to the courts will be denied without prejudice. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 2| Plaintiffs “Motion for Facility Property Officer to Cease From Hindering □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 Access to the Courts” (Doc. 24), and the Motion is denied. 4 Dated this 14th day of April, 2025. 5 WM cla T. Hburde Michael T, Liburdi 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-